Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment ... vs Millenium Business Solutions Pvt on 20 December, 2004
In Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited, 2004 (5) CTC 689, it has been held that this Court cannot pass any such order in writ jurisdiction, since directing one time settlement or granting installments is really re-scheduling the loan, which can only be done by the bank or financial institution which granted the loan. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reschedule a loan. A writ is issued when there is violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record, and not for rescheduling loans. The Court must exercise restraint in such matters, and not depart from well settled legal principles".
R. Nanjappan vs The District Collector And Ors. on 29 December, 2004
"46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence this Court under Article 226 is not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law, vide R.Nanjappan Vs. The District Collector, Coimbatore, 2005 WLR 47, Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2003 (6) SC 20.
Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 1996
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-IV) Ltd., Dindigul Vs. P.Ellappan, 2005 (1) MLJ 639, Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (1) SCC 134, etc."
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Banibrata Ghosh & Ors on 2 February, 2009
18. The Writ Petition therefore cannot be entertained in the light of the above mentioned judgments. In any event, when I.A.No.1258 of 2010 had been filed in S.A.No.198 of 2009. On the dismissal of S.A.No.198 of 2009, which is not sought to be pressed, I.A.No.1258 of 2010 alone cannot be challenged. The order in I.A.No.1258 of 2010 would merge in the final decision in S.A.No.198 of 2009. It is a settled position of law that all interim orders get merged into final orders and the interim orders alone cannot be challenged when the final order is not pressed. We deem it fit to consider few decisions. Refer, (i) Prem Chandra Agarwal and Another Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and Others reported in (2209) 11 SCC 479, (ii) State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Banibrate Ghosh and Others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 250 and (iii) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs. State of MP and Others reported in (2003) 8 SCC 648.
Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 5 February, 1962
8. No doubt Article 226 on its plain language states that a writ can be used by the High Court for enforcing a fundamental right or for 'any other purpose'. However, by judician interpretation the words 'any other purpose' have been interpreted to mean the enforcement of any legal right or performance of any legal duty, vide Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1044. In the present case, the writ petitioner has really prayed for a Mandamus to the Corporation to grant it a one time settlement, but no violation of any law has been pointed out. In our opinion, no such mandamus can be issued in this case, and hence the writ petition should not have been entertained. A mandamus is issued only when the petitioner can show that he has a legal right to the performance of a public duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought.
1